Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2025] QIRC 238

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 238

Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 238

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 238

PARTIES:

Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

GP/2024/37

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings 

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Power IC

26 June 2025

ORDER:

Order as per [70] of this decision

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – GENERAL PROTECTIONS – applicant filed an application in existing proceedings – where applicant seeks disclosure of further documents – where the Respondent objects to the disclosure request – where applicant seeks a decision regarding the objections pursuant to r 46 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld)

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 282(1)(b)

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 46

CASES:

Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurant & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276

Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 025

Watton v TAFE Queensland (No.2) [2021] QIRC 299

Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    The Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employee ('the Applicant') filed a claim against the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') alleging contraventions of the Industrial Relations Act ('the IR Act') relating to s 282(1)(b).
  1. [2]
    Following the Applicant's request for further and better disclosure on 18 February 2025, the Respondent provided an updated list of documents on 28 March 2025.
  1. [3]
    The Applicant contends that the Respondent did not disclose all documents directly relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding.
  1. [4]
    The Applicant filed an application in existing proceedings on 16 April 2025 seeking an order that the Respondent produce to the Applicant within 14 days all documents within the categories of documents specified in Schedule B attached to the application, pursuant to Rule 46 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules').
  1. [5]
    At the hearing of this application, the Applicant filed an Amended Schedule B which included an updated list of documents sought for disclosure.

Rule 46

  1. [6]
    Rule 46 of the IR Rules is outlined as follows:

46  Duty of Disclosure

  1. If a directions order requiring disclosure of documents is made, a party must disclose any document that—
    1. (a)
      is directly relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding; and
    1. (b)
      is in, or comes into, the possession of the party.
  1. A party must act under subrule (1) until the proceeding is concluded or the matter in issue is admitted, withdrawn, struck out or otherwise disposed of.
  1. Subrule (1) does not apply to a document in relation to which there is a valid claim to privilege from disclosure.
  1. [7]
    In Watton v TAFE Queensland (No.2), Deputy President Hartigan considered the operation of r 46:[1]

[9]  By operation of r 46 of the Tribunals Rules, the obligation in respect of disclosure applies to documents relevant to an allegation in issue in the proceedings. Where disclosure has been made by a party, another party seeking further disclosure must establish that there are documents in the possession or power of the other party which are relevant to an issue in dispute which have not been disclosed by that other party.

…

[11]  The purpose of the Statement of Facts and Contentions is to allow each party to properly set out and particularise the relevant facts and legal contentions raised in order to place the Commission and other party on notice as to what the parties' respective case will be. Whilst not formally recognised as such, the Statement of Facts and Contentions have a function akin to pleadings.

[12]  Accordingly, when determining whether a document, or category of documents is directly relevant, I will do so by considering whether the document or category of documents is directly relevant to an allegation in issue as identified in the [Appellant's] SOFC and [Respondent's] SOFC. The “directly relevant” test set out in r 46 of the Tribunals Rules is intended to impose a threshold on the process of discovery.

  1. [8]
    As observed by President Davis in Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland:[2]

To be relevant, a document does not have to in itself prove the case of the party seeking production of it. It is sufficient if the document tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue in the proceedings.

Documents sought

  1. [9]
    The documents sought by the Applicant as amended at hearing and further narrowed on 28 August 2025 are outlined below:[3] 

Number

Category

2

Documents in relation to the decision communicated to relevant TPCH-ACT staff by Adj Prof Geary on or about 15 July 2022 including any role comparisons undertaken by Carol Jeffers apart from the spreadsheet provided at document #251

4

Documents recording communications involving any of Dr Turner, Dr Muthuswamy, Ms Chiavone, Ms Norris, Ms Durant, Adj Prof Geary, Mr Haworth, Mr Dart, or Ms Kylie Garrick/Whyte, Keiran Simpson, or Kim Baker on costing budgets, financial effects, financial projections or financial consequences of:

  1. The Business Case for Change ('BCFC');
  2. The implementation of the BCFC;
  3. The application of clause 32 of EB10 for the period from 22 June 2020 or clause 44 of EB11 for the period from 7 December 2022 to 23 August 2024 to TPCH-ACT.

5

All documents prepared by Dr Muthuswamy or evidencing communications to which Dr Muthuswamy was a party in the period 2022 to 2024 inclusive in connection with:

  1. The pay parity provisions in clause 32 of EB10 or clause 44 of EB11 (pay parity provisions);
  2. The application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPHC-ACT before and after the introduction of pay parity;
  3. the BCFC

6

Documents in the category in 5 above in respect of Ms Troman (acting Operations Director).

7

Documents evidencing all communications between Ms Chiavone, Mr Norris or Ms Durant and 'HR/WR' or the 'HR business partner' including 'Keiran' or Keiran Simpson in the period from November 2022 to 23 August 2024 about the application of pay parity provisions in the TPCH-ACT.

8

Documents evidencing all communications in connection with the direction given by Adj Prof Geary on a date or dates during or prior to October 2023 that multidisciplinary nursing roles were to be avoided.

9

Documents evidencing all communications involving Dr Muthuswamy, Dr Hitesh Joshi, or Ms Troman during 2023 and 2024 about the Project and the BCFC (as defined at paragraphs 11 and 17 of the Respondents Statement of Facts and Contentions ('SOFC'), respectively) in relation to pay parity of NG6 nurses and scope of practice of NG6 nurses.

11

Documents including minutes in relation to the Project Leadership Group meeting on 13 November 2023.

12

Documents in relation to communications between Ms Chiavone and Ms Kylie Whyte/Garrick in relation to the work of Ms Whyte/Garrick on documents referred to an email from Ms Chiavone dated 15 November 2023 Respondent disclosed document #89

21

Documents recording communications in connection with a meeting with Dr Turner and Dr Muthuswamy referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #40.

23

Documents in relation to a HP3 grievance and pay parity being dealt with by 'Kylie', referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #46.

26

Documents evidencing the meetings with HR/WR in Multidisciplinary roles and pay parity referred to in the Project Leadership Group meeting minutes of 7 August 2023, including a meeting planned for 14 August 2023.

27

Documents in connection with the following referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #87:

  1. A discussion between Scott Haworth and Dr Turner;
  2. A briefing of Dr Turner by Louise Durant;
  3. Advice and communications between Ms Chiavone and the HR business partner

30

Documents in relation to the 'Executive input' on details around staffing and shift patterns including the BCFC.

Consideration

  1. [10]
    The Applicant seeks an order for disclosure of documents outlined in paragraph 9. In accordance with r 46, the Respondent is only required to disclose documents which are directly relevant to the proceeding or a matter in issue in the proceeding.
  1. [11]
    An assessment of the 'direct relevance' of a document is made with reference to the issues in dispute as outlined in the statements of facts and contentions.
  1. [12]
    The Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions ('SOFC') outline the alleged reasons for the Respondent's redesign of the Mental Health Acute Care Team at the Prince Charles Hospital. Paragraphs [18] and [19] of the Applicant's SOFC are outlined as follows:

[18]  The Applicant contends that the following conduct of the Respondent constitutes adverse action as defined by s 282(1)(b) of the IR Act:

  1. Changing the nature of the members roles;
  2. Changing classification of the members' roles;
  3. Changing the members' entitlements;
  4. Advising the members that they will not be entitled to Pay Parity under clause 44 of EB11;
  5. Placing the members in positions in which the benefits under the Multi-Disciplinary Team Clause are not payable.

Specifically, the Applicant contends that the conduct:

  1. injures the members in their employment by resulting in an immediate, practical disadvantage, namely a significant reduction as a consequence of no longer receiving the benefit of the Multi-Disciplinary Team Clause;
  2. injures the members in their employment by removing them from their established roles;
  3. injures the members in their employment by potentially reducing the scope of duties and nature of work which they may undertake;
  4. alters the position of each of the members to their prejudice by the significant reduction of their salary and status.
  5. A reduction in the currently recognised professional status as performing the same work as their multidisciplinary colleagues, to a more limited recognition of single discipline.

[19]  Further, under s 282(5) of the IR Act, adverse action also includes threatening to take action covered by subsections (1) to (4). The Respondent, by its conduct in confirming its intention in its statements in the BCFC, Implementation Plan and correspondence with the Applicant to proceed with the proposed changes, the ACT redesign and the removal of payment under the Multi-Disciplinary Team Clause, has threatened, and continues to threaten, to:

  1. Injure the members in their employment; and
  2. Threatens to alter the position of each of the members to their prejudice
  1. [13]
    The Respondent filed a response to the Applicant's SOFC outlining, inter alia, the following:

[11] On or about 11 November 2022, a project commenced to examine restructuring the TPCH ACT ('Project')

[12] The Project was to examine several issues, including:

  1. Changing resources to provide for more home-based care; and
  2. Whether the decision to treat ACT NG6/HP4 roles as multi-disciplinary created adverse issues with leadership accountabilities, deliverables and expectations.

[13] The ACT established a 'Project Leadership Group' in February 2023. That group met approximately every three weeks during 2023, and was comprised of ACT and other Metro North Health leadership. That group received updates about the Project from the project leader, and discussed proposals regarding the ACT structure (amongst other related topics).

[14] The ACT also established a 'Project Consultation Group' in March 2023. That group met approximately monthly during 2023 to receive updates about, and discuss, the Project. Members of the ACT Project Consultation Group included nurses and health practitioners from the ACT.

[15] From at least March 2023, the Project Consultation Group and Leadership Group discussed a potential restructure of the ACT into smaller teams with clear clinical functions, comprised of discipline specific roles. Those discussions continued throughout 2023.

[16] On 30 November 2023, some Metro North Health employees with leadership or management responsibility for the ACT met with members of the ACT to discuss some proposed changes to the ACT which had progressed as part of the Project. One of those changes was that the 'multidisciplinary' NG6/HP4 role would be moving to single-discipline roles performing discipline specific work, because that would support optimal patient care by the ACT (as part of a broader restructuring of the ACT).

Business Case for Change

[17] On 20 June 2024, the State published a BCFC regarding the ACT (the full text of which will be relied upon at hearing as to meaning and effect).

[18] A BCFC is a consultation document. When Metro North Health is proposing to implement a significant change to its structure, it will generally prepare a BCFC and use that document to facilitate consultation with relevant employees and their unions about that change.

[19] The BCFC reflected the ACT's leadership's proposals, which had progressed as part of the project. That included ensuring that relevant ACT employees were working to full scope of practice in discipline-specific roles, because that outcome would be clinically advantageous to the ACT's patients.

[20] The proposals in the BCFC are currently being implemented by the Respondent (per paragraph 34 of this Response).

  1. [14]
    The workplace right involved in this matter relates to the benefit of the pay parity provisions of two industrial agreements – EB10 and EB11.
  1. [15]
    In broad summary, the Applicant contends that because of the exercise of the workplace right to pay parity, the Respondent took adverse action in the form of a redesign of the ACT, which resulted in a reclassification of 12.2 full-time equivalent roles with the effect that the nurses in those roles would lose pay parity.
  1. [16]
    Following a decision communicated on 15 July 2022 confirming pay parity, a BCFC was progressed regarding the ACT redesign/restructure. This process is described as ‘the Project’ in the Applicant’s SOFC.
  1. [17]
    The Applicant submits that the relevant issues for the purposes of this application for further and better disclosure are the reason for taking the alleged adverse action and the decisionmaker/s responsible for the decision to take the action.

Category 2 – Documents in relation to the decision communicated to relevant TPCH-ACT staff by Adj Prof Geary on or about 15 July 2022 including any role comparisons undertaken by Carol Jeffers apart from the spreadsheet provided at document #251

  1. [18]
    The Respondent objects to the disclosure of documents sought in this category on the basis that the Respondent’s agreement to pay NG6's per cl 32 of EB 10 and later cl 44 of EB11 is not a matter in issue.
  1. [19]
    The Applicant submits that the provision of these documents is relevant to an issue in dispute being the scope of practice.
  1. [20]
    This decision communicated by Adj Professor Geary on 15 July 2022 confirmed that NG6's were entitled to pay parity in accordance with EB10 and EB11. That matter is not in dispute and accordingly 'documents in relation to the decision' are not directly relevant.
  1. [21]
    The Respondent states in their SOFC that prior to the decision regarding pay parity, the Respondent had been concerned that employees may not have been working to their full scope of practice. In addition, the Respondent states that the BCFC considered whether employees were working to full scope of practice in disciplinary specific roles.
  1. [22]
    I consider that the broad category of documents sought in relation to the decision of 15 July 2022 are not directly relevant to a matter in issue in this proceeding. However, role comparisons are directly relevant to the issue of scope of practice. Accordingly, any role comparisons undertaken by Carol Jeffers should be disclosed.
  1. [23]
    The Respondent is required to disclose role comparisons undertaken by Carol Jeffers apart from the spreadsheet provided at document #251.

Category 4 – Documents recording communications involving any of Dr Turner, Dr Muthuswamy, Ms Chiavone, Ms Norris, Ms Durant, Adj Prof Geary, Mr Haworth, Mr Dart, or Ms Kylie Garrick/Whyte, Keiran Simpson, or Kim Baker on costing budgets, financial effects, financial projections or financial consequences of:

  1. The BCFC;
  2. The implementation of the BCFC;
  3. The application of clause 32 of EB10 for the period from 22 June 2020 or clause 44 of EB11 for the period from 7 December 2022 to 23 August 2024 to TPCH-ACT.
  1. [24]
    The Respondent objects to this category due to the breadth of the request. Whilst I appreciate that the category may be considered broad, the request is narrowed to documents recording communications involving a small number of employees.
  2. [25]
    The role of labour costs, specifically pay parity in the multi-disciplinary teams, is a matter in issue in these proceedings relating to the decision to commence and implement the BCFC. It can reasonably be assumed that documents relating to costing budgets and the financial effects, projections or consequences of the ACT restructure will include information regarding labour costs and pay parity and hence are directly relevant.
  1. [26]
    The time period outlined in (c) however is unnecessarily lengthy. The Application of cl 32 of EB10 for the period from 22 June 2020 may be relevant to the pay parity decision of July 2022, however it is not directly relevant to the BCFC. I accept however that the application of cl 44 of EB11 for the period from 7 December 2022 to 23 August 2024 to TPCH-ACT is directly relevant and sufficiently narrowed to the appropriate time period.
  1. [27]
    The Respondent is required to disclose the documents in category 4, with the exception of those relating to the application of cl 32 of EB10 for the period from 22 June 2020.

Category 5 – All  documents prepared by Dr Muthuswamy or evidencing communications to which Dr Muthuswamy was a party in the period 2022 to 2024 inclusive in connection with:

  1. The pay parity provisions in clause 32 of EB10 or clause 44 of EB11 (pay parity provisions);
  2. The application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPHC-ACT before and after the introduction of pay parity;
  3. the BCFC
  1. [28]
    The Respondent objects to the disclosure of this category of documents on the grounds that part (a) is not confined to directly relevant documents and that 'the pay parity provisions' limited to clause 32 of EB10 and clause 44 of EB11 is not itself a matter in issue.
  1. [29]
    The Respondent submits that parts (b) and (c) each flow from (a), so they have the same issue regarding a lack of direct relevance.
  1. [30]
    The Applicant submits that this category is similar to category 4 but is confined to Dr Muthuswamy on the basis that as Operations Director he was the arbiter of matters financial and budgetary and the conduit for all issues in that portfolio.
  1. [31]
    The pay parity provisions are in issue to the extent that they form part of the Applicant's case that it was the exercise of the workplace right to pay parity that formed a rationale for the BCFC. The communications relating to the pay parity provisions and the BCFC are therefore directly relevant.
  1. [32]
    Documents regarding the application of pay parity provisions before the introduction of pay parity are not directly relevant as it is not in dispute that the Respondent agreed to pay parity in July 2022.
  1. [33]
    The Respondent is required to disclose the documents sought in Category 5 with the exception of those in connection with the application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPCH-ACT before the introduction of pay parity as outlined in (b).

Category 6 – Documents in the category in 5 above in respect of Ms Troman (acting Operations Director).

  1. [34]
    Category 6 is the same as category 5 however with respect to Ms Liz Troman.
  1. [35]
    The Applicant submits that Ms Troman was the Nursing Director at TPCH during the relevant period and was also acting Operations Director and a member of the Project Leadership Group. In these circumstances I accept that documents to which Ms Troman was a party in the period 2022 to 2024 regarding the pay parity provisions and the BCFC are directly relevant to a matter in issue.
  1. [36]
    As outlined in consideration of category 5, the communications relating to the pay parity provisions prior to the BCFC are directly relevant, however those relating to pay parity prior to the introduction of pay parity are not directly relevant.
  1. [37]
    Accordingly, the Respondent is required to disclose the documents sought in category 6 with the exception of those in connection with the application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPCH-ACT before the introduction of pay parity as outlined in (b).

Category 7 – Documents evidencing all communications between Ms Chiavone, Mr Norris or Ms Durant and 'HR/WR' or the 'HR business partner' including 'Keiran' or Keiran Simpson in the period from November 2022 to 23 August 2024 about the application of pay parity provisions in the TPCH-ACT.

  1. [38]
    The Applicant narrowed the search period and subject matter from the initial request, thereby seeking only those documents that were 'about the application of pay parity provisions in TPCH-ACT from November 2022 to 23 August 2024'.
  1. [39]
    The Applicant submits these communications are relevant because they concern the industrial relations, workplace relations, and workplace rights entitlements of employee's consequent on executing the changes in this restructure.
  1. [40]
    The documents are directly relevant to the issue of the role pay parity played in the decision to develop a BCFC to restructure the TPCH-ACT.
  1. [41]
    The Respondent is required to disclose this category of documents.

Category 8 – Documents evidencing all communications in connection with the direction given by Adj Prof Geary on a date or dates during or prior to October 2023 that multidisciplinary nursing roles were to be avoided.

  1. [42]
    The Respondent objects to this category on the basis that the request assumes such a 'direction' was issued. The Respondent made the following submission at hearing:

And I don't say this disrespectfully but if an order is made in respect of a category such as category 8, on our instructions, there will be no documents produced.[4]

  1. [43]
    In circumstances where the Respondent indicated that it is not in possession of documents related to category 8, no order will be made for disclosure of this category.

Category 9 – Documents evidencing all communications involving Dr Muthuswamy, Dr Hitesh Joshi, or Ms Troman during 2023 and 2024 about the Project and the BCFC (as defined at paragraphs 11 and 17 of the Respondents Statement of Facts and Contentions ('SOFC'), respectively) in relation to pay parity of NG6 nurses and scope of practice of NG6 nurses.

  1. [44]
    During the hearing of this application, Counsel for the Respondent suggested terms to clarify the request for documents in category 9 and Counsel for the Applicant agreed to these terms. From my review of the transcript, it appears that parties agreed on the particularisation of documents sought and no objection was pressed.[5]   
  1. [45]
    The document emailed by the Respondent on 25 August however indicates that category 9 remains in dispute.
  1. [46]
    As outlined in the Applicant’s SOFC, pay parity of NG6 nurses is a matter in issue to the extent that it related to the exercise of a workplace right. The scope of practice of NG6 nurses is also a matter in issue in relation to the decision to develop the BCFC as outlined in the Respondent’s SOFC.
  1. [47]
    This category of documents is narrow in that it relates to a limited time period, involves a small number of employees, and refers to a specified subject matter that is directly relevant to matters in proceedings.
  1. [48]
    Accordingly, the Respondent is required to disclose this category of documents.

Category 11– Documents including minutes in relation to the Project Leadership Group meeting on 13 November 2023; and

Category 12 – Documents in relation to communications between Ms Chiavone and Ms Kylie Whyte/Garrick in relation to the work of Ms Whyte/Garrick on documents referred to an email from Ms Chiavone dated 15 November 2023 Respondent disclosed document #89

  1. [49]
    The Respondent submits that it has already disclosed all documents directly relevant to this category of which it is currently aware.
  1. [50]
    The Respondent submits that this category is similar to that of category 8 in that the Applicant has made an assumption that the documents exist and if an order is made there will be no documents that will be produced. The Respondent's Counsel confirmed at hearing their instructions that these documents do not exist.
  1. [51]
    On the basis that the Respondent is not in possession of the documents sought in these categories, an order for disclosure will not be made.

Category 21 – Documents recording communications in connection with a meeting with Dr Turner and Dr Muthuswamy referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #40.

  1. [52]
    Document #40 disclosed by the Respondent is an email between two witnesses which includes the following – 'Just some thoughts in my head while I'm at the gym; not sure if you want to feed these back at meeting with Kathryn/Senthil'.
  1. [53]
    The Respondent submits that this email was a reference to a potential future meeting, rather than any specific meeting, and accordingly there are no directly relevant documents for this category.
  1. [54]
    On the basis of the Respondent's submission that there are no documents in relation to the alleged meeting, no order shall be made for disclosure in this category.

Category 23 – Documents in relation to a HP3 grievance and pay parity being dealt with by 'Kylie', referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #46.

  1. [55]
    The Respondent objects to this category on the basis that 'a HP3 grievance and pay parity' is not directly relevant to a matter in issue and that not all pay parity grievances are relevant.
  1. [56]
    In circumstances where the matter in issue relates to pay parity matter concerning NG6s and HP4s, documents in relation to a HP3 grievance are not directly relevant to a matter in issue.
  1. [57]
    No order will be made to disclose category 23 documents.

Category 26 – Documents evidencing the meetings with HR/WR in Multidisciplinary roles and pay parity referred to in the Project Leadership Group meeting minutes of 7 August 2023, including a meeting planned for 14 August 2023.

  1. [58]
    The Respondent submits that they have already disclosed an email summarising the meeting which occurred on 14 August 2023 involving HR/WR.
  1. [59]
    The Applicant accepts that an email summarising the meeting of 14 August has been disclosed, however submits that it is seeking the minutes of particular meetings referred to in the minutes of 7 August and 14 August.
  1. [60]
    The Respondent submits that this category assumes that there are documents that exist beyond that which has been disclosed. The Respondent states that there are no other documents that respond to this category.
  1. [61]
    On the basis of the Respondent's submission that further documents do not exist in this category, no order for disclosure will be made.

Category 27 – Documents in connection with the following referred to in Respondent's disclosed document #87:

  1. A discussion between Scott Haworth and Dr Turner;
  2. A briefing of Dr Turner by Louise Durant;
  3. Advice and communications between Ms Chiavone and the HR business partner
  1. [62]
    The Respondent submits that they have already disclosed documents directly relevant as outlined in (a), (b) and (c), and that to the extent that documents exist in relation to this category, they have been disclosed.
  1. [63]
    In circumstances where the Respondent has indicated that there are no other documents in existence in relation to this category, no disclosure order will be made.

Category 30 – Documents in relation to the 'Executive input' on details around staffing and shift patterns including the BCFC.

  1. [64]
    The Applicant refers to the minutes of a Project consultation group of 21 April 2023 outlining a BCFC which states the following:

Details around staffing and shift patterns will be included based on staff feedback, benchmarking with similar services and TPCH executive input.

  1. [65]
    The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not disclosed documents evidencing 'communications about executive input on documents and issues critical to the change process in issue in these proceedings'.
  1. [66]
    The Respondent contends that this category is vague and not limited to directly relevant documents.
  1. [67]
    Documents relating to 'shift patterns' are not relevant to a matter in issue, however documents relating to 'staffing' are directly relevant to the decision to develop and implement the BCFC. Decisions regarding 'staffing' are directly relevant to issue of whether pay parity between staff was a reason for the BCFC and the issue of concerns regarding the scope of practice for staff in multi-disciplinary teams.
  1. [68]
    The Applicant contends that 'executive input' can translate to decision-making. In circumstances where the decision-making process in this matter is directly relevant, I am satisfied that this category is directly relevant to matters in issue in the proceedings.
  1. [69]
    The Respondent is to disclose category 30 documents with the exception of shift patterns.

Order

  1. [70]
    For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:
  1. The following documents are to be disclosed to the Applicant within 21 days of this order –
  1. Documents in category 2 limited to role comparisons undertaken by Carol Jeffers apart from the spreadsheet provided at document #251.
  1. Documents in category 4 except for those documents relating to the application of cl 32 of EB10 for the period from 22 June 2020.
  1. Documents in category 5 except for those in connection with the application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPCH-ACT before the introduction of pay parity.
  1. Documents in category 6 except for those in connection with the application of the pay parity provisions to NRG6 nurses in TPCH-ACT before the introduction of pay parity.
  1. Documents in category 7
  1. Documents in category 9
  1. Documents in category 30 with the exception of shift patterns.
  1. The application for disclosure of the following documents is dismissed –
  1. Documents in category 8
  1. Documents in category 11 and 12
  1. Documents in category 21
  1. Documents in category 23
  1. Documents in category 26
  1. Documents in category 27

Footnotes

[1] [2021] QIRC 299.

[2] [2023] ICQ 025, [42] citing Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurant & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276, 282-3 and Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd & Ors; Santos Ltd & Ors v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QSC 323, [45].

[3] The documents are a summary of those outlined in Amended Schedule B removed or not pressed at hearing. 

[4] T 1-24, ll 48 – 49.

[5] T 1-29, ll 34 – 49; T 1-30, ll 1 – 45.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 238

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Power IC

  • Date:

    05 Sep 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Mohr-Edgar v Legal Aid Queensland [2023] ICQ 25
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] ICQ 25
Cite 2 - [2023] ICQ 25
Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd[2001] 1 Qd R 276; [1999] QCA 276
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Cite 2 - [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Watton v TAFE Queensland (No.2) [2021] QIRC 299
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 299
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 299
Xstrata Queensland Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 323
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2005] QSC 323
Cite 2 - [2005] QSC 323

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.